A recent message from President Donald Trump to Norway’s Prime Minister has reignited debate over the possibility of invoking the 25th Amendment, as some Democrats argue that the president’s actions demonstrate an inability to fulfill the duties of office.
The controversy stems from a letter Trump sent to Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre over the weekend, following a dispute regarding the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize and comments about Greenland. The president’s aggressive rhetoric toward Greenland has raised concerns among lawmakers and foreign policy experts, particularly regarding the potential for tension among NATO allies. Trump’s letter suggested that U.S. interests in Greenland could justify action, including the use of military force, if necessary.
The Letter That Sparked Concern
In the correspondence, Trump wrote, “Dear Jonas: Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a ‘right of ownership’ anyway?”
He continued, “There are no written documents; it’s only that a boat landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any other person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT”
Prime Minister Støre confirmed receipt of the letter, describing the correspondence as unusual and politically sensitive. The letter has prompted calls from several Democratic members of Congress to explore whether Trump’s actions could warrant use of the 25th Amendment.
Understanding the 25th Amendment
The 25th Amendment, ratified in 1967 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, was designed to address scenarios in which a president is incapacitated or otherwise unable to perform the duties of office. It consists of four sections:
Section 1 establishes that if a president dies, resigns, or is removed from office, the vice president assumes the presidency.
Section 2 allows the president to nominate a vice president if the position becomes vacant, subject to congressional approval.
Section 3 enables a president to temporarily transfer power by notifying the House speaker and Senate president pro tempore in writing that they are unable to perform presidential duties. This section has typically been used during medical procedures.
Section 4 provides a mechanism for the vice president and a majority of the Cabinet to declare the president unable to perform the duties of the office. In such a case, the vice president becomes acting president. If the president contests the declaration, Congress must vote, requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers to maintain the president’s removal.
Political Reactions and Calls for Action
Following Trump’s statements and the Greenland letter, some Democrats have openly called for the 25th Amendment to be invoked. Representatives Yassamin Ansari and Sydney Kamlager-Dove, along with Senator Ed Markey, expressed concerns over the president’s mental fitness, arguing that his actions pose risks to U.S. national security and global stability.
“The president of the United States is extremely mentally ill, and it’s putting all of our lives at risk. The 25th Amendment exists for a reason—we need to invoke it immediately,” said Representative Ansari in a post on X.
Even some Republicans, including Representative Don Bacon and Senator Mitch McConnell, voiced criticism of the president’s rhetoric, though not all supported calls for immediate removal.
Legal and Practical Considerations
Legal experts caution that invoking the 25th Amendment is complex and carries both constitutional and political challenges. Mark Graber, a law professor at the University of Maryland, explained that the amendment is primarily intended for cases of medical incapacitation. “The legal problem is that the 25th Amendment was designed to deal with a medically incapacitated president, for example, a president who is unconscious or unable to physically perform the duties of the office,” Graber said.
He added that while some might argue that a president exhibiting extreme or unorthodox behavior could be considered incapable, Trump does not meet the medical standard envisioned by the amendment. Graber further noted that actions such as controversial policy decisions or provocative rhetoric are more appropriately addressed through impeachment processes rather than the 25th Amendment.
“A fair case can be made that President Trump’s actions are impeachable, but that is a different part of the Constitution and suffers from the same political problem,” Graber said, noting that impeachment and removal are ultimately political judgments made by Congress rather than purely legal determinations.
Context and Ongoing Debate
Trump’s letter to Norway comes amid ongoing scrutiny of his foreign policy decisions and public statements. Analysts note that aggressive claims regarding Greenland and questions about NATO obligations have fueled debate over presidential judgment and decision-making authority.
While the 25th Amendment provides a mechanism for removing or temporarily suspending a president, political and legal experts emphasize that its application is rare and typically reserved for clear cases of physical or medical incapacity. In this case, congressional debate and public discourse continue to weigh the line between controversial leadership and actual incapacity.
As the debate unfolds, questions about Trump’s behavior, foreign relations, and executive authority remain at the forefront of political discussions. The episode underscores the tension between presidential power, congressional oversight, and public safety in navigating unprecedented scenarios in modern governance.